Obama considers protecting Native American site; conservatives disapprove

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Obama considers protecting Native American site; conservatives disapprove

Post by The Romulan Republic »

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html
RIM OF CEDAR MESA, Utah — For centuries, humans have used the red sandstone canyons here as a way to mark their existence.

First came archaic hunter-gatherers who worked in Glen Canyon Linear, a crude geometrical style dating back more than 3,500 years. Then about 2,000 years later, early ancestral Pueblo farmers of the Basketmaker period used more subtle lines to produce a man in headdress. A little more than 700 years ago came their descendants, who used the same kind of hard river stone to make drawings of bighorn sheep and a flute player in the ancient rock.

Now, President Obama is weighing whether and how he can leave his own permanent imprint on history by designating about 2 million acres of land, known as the Bears Ears, as a national monument.

And despite the uniformly acknowledged historical significance of the area, some people regard the conservation efforts by the White House as classic federal overreach. In the current-era conflict between Washington and rural Westerners, the idea of a Bears Ears national monument has produced warnings of a possible armed insurrection.

In a state where the federal government owns 65 percent of the land, many conservatives already resent existing restrictions because they bar development that could generate additional revenue. Out-of-state militias came to San Juan County two years ago, when Commissioner Phil Lyman helped lead an all-terrain-vehicle protest ride through a canyon the Bureau of Land Management had closed to motorized traffic in 2007. Lyman is appealing the 10-day jail sentence he received in connection with the protest, and he argues that his case shows how BLM officials place the priorities of environmentalists over those of local residents.

Should the government establish a national monument at this Utah historic site?
Play Video2:23
Proponents and opponents of a proposed national monument in Utah sound off on whether Bears Ears should be protected. (Peter Stevenson,Juliet Eilperin/The Washington Post)
“I would hope that my fellow Utahans would not use violence, but there are some deeply held positions that cannot just be ignored,” Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, the veteran Republican lawmaker, said in an interview.

Cedar Mesa is one of the best preserved and most archeologically rich sites in the United States. The dry climate and rock overhangs have protected important artifacts for millennia, and there are tens of thousands of ancient objects and structures preserved, including ones in which the original wood beams in cliff dwellings remain intact. In a granary where the Pueblo people kept maize, a single dried cob lies on a dusty floor.


But some lawmakers have suggested that unilateral action by the president, under the 1906 Antiquities Act, could provoke the same sort of resistance that led to the 41-day armed takeover of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in Oregon earlier this year.

“There is a lot of conflict that has escalated into being on the precipice of violence that is unnecessary and unwarranted,” said Rep. Jason Chaffetz
(R-Utah), who opposes the designation.

Obama has approached the designation of national monuments as a way to bolster the country’s defenses against climate change and as a way to make the national narrative more inclusive, in addition to his obligation to safeguard the country’s national treasures.


[How Obama helped Harry Reid leave an indelible mark in Nevada’s desert]

Looting incidents
In the case of Bears Ears, there is no question that the area is imperiled by the kind of looting and pillaging that first inspired the Antiquities Act, as well as more modern threats, such as ATVs and motorbikes tearing through the desert terrain.

There have been six confirmed looting incidents in the past six months, and at least two dozen over the past five years. In one, a vandal used a rock saw to remove a petroglyph; in one this year someone dug up a pristine ceremonial chamber, or kiva, that had never been professionally excavated. Although the BLM has allocated $400,000 over two years to stabilize 10 archeological sites and trained about 20 people to serve as volunteer “site stewards,” it employs just two law enforcement officers to patrol 1.8 million acres.

Without help from Washington, preservationists worry that the looting and destruction will continue. Word of the region’s treasures has spread from academics and archaeologists to “pot hunters” and other looters, said Don Simonis, the BLM’s archeologist for the area. “For years we’ve been reluctant to talk about it, but if we don’t talk about it, how else can we convince the powers that be that we need protection here, and get the resources we need to protect it?”


But in the Bears Ears region, named for the twin buttes that define the landscape, and surrounding San Juan County there are competing claims to the land and its history. The area has been home over the centuries to Native American tribes, Mormon settlers who reshaped the land in the late 1800s and the energy prospectors, ranchers and thrill-seekers drawn to it today.

All lay claim to pieces of the region’s past and all are determined to have a voice in its future.

On May 19, Utah Gov. Gary R. Herbert (R) signed a resolution, passed in a special session, specifically opposing a national monument. But even that measure stipulated that the legislature and governor were in favor of “protection and conservation of the Bears Ears area” if done in “a constitutionally sound, locally driven legislative approach.”

Chaffetz and House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Rob Bishop (R-Utah) have spent more than three years crafting a lands bill that affects seven counties in eastern Utah, spanning 18 million acres. The process involved extensive deliberations with a wide range of interests—more than 1,200 meetings and more than 120 different groups, according to staffers, as one of Bishop’s aides racked up more than 65,000 miles on his Nissan Versa traveling from one meeting to another.

Forces of opposition
The lawmakers may introduce a bill this month, and earlier drafts set aside four times as much land for conservation as for development. But those proposals have drawn sharp criticism from environmentalists and tribal leaders, in part because they give state and local officials greater say over managing federal lands and redefine what activities can take place in protected areas.

Scott Groene, executive director of the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, has dubbed the plan the “Plundered Lands Initiative.” He said it “gives away vast amounts of public land, sacrifices landscapes to energy development, rolls back existing protection and fails to protect the Bears Ears.”

And a coalition of tribal groups — including representatives from the Hopi, Navajo, Uintah and Ouray Ute, Ute Mountain Ute and Pueblo of Zuni — abandoned what had been fitful negotiations with Utah Republicans in December, saying they were not given a proper voice in shaping the deal. Leaders of the tribes, some of which had warred against each other in the past, said they have found a common cause because of their spiritual and historical connection to the area.


“We put aside the sense of who came here first and who came here last,” said Carleton Bowekaty, a Pueblo of Zuni councilman. “We’re not confined by reservation lines. We’re not confined by state lines.”

A nonprofit Navajo group started pressing for federal protection six years ago, but tribal leaders say the state’s current members of Congress haven’t given them as much say as the late Sen. Robert Bennett (R-Utah), who started the talks. Kenneth Maryboy, who at the time served as one of San Juan County’s three commissioners, attended a listening session with the two lawmakers and members of the community where one rancher openly scoffed at the idea of recognizing tribal claims.

“The damn Indians don’t need another reservation,” Maryboy recalled the rancher saying.

One prominent Navajo backs the congressional approach. Rebecca Benally, a Democrat who defeated Maryboy and sits on the county commission, argues that the federal government cannot be trusted to properly manage a monument.

[Retelling the American narrative with national monument designations]

Feelings are so brittle here that one Utah conservationist, Black Diamond Equipment chief executive Peter Metcalf, remarked in an interview that it embodies William Faulkner’s famous phrase: “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.”

Lyman, a critic of both the national monument proposal and the lawmakers’ broader lands bill, lives in Blanding, the town his great-grandfather helped found a century ago. Walter C. Lyman and other Mormon pioneers came from southwestern Utah in the arduous, six-month Hole-in-the-Rock expedition and first established the town of Bluff, which abuts the proposed monument designation. After repeated flooding ruined the settlers’ crops, Lyman managed to bring water onto White Mesa, about 25 miles away, and most of the settlers relocated.

When Lyman discusses his disputes with federal officials, environmentalists and some Navajo activists, he cites historic markers such as the 1865 law Abraham Lincoln gave Utahans, granting the right-of-way to build roads, and a 1933 agreement county leaders forged with the Navajos that gave them 500,00 acres south of the San Juan River, which is now part of a reservation that spans multiple states.


“The whole purpose of it was to create certainty: This is yours and this is ours,” he said. “It was supposed to have settled this.”

At this point, Native Americans — mostly Navajos and some Utes — make up 46 percent of San Juan County’s population. The county’s unemployment rate is more than double the state average, and about a quarter of county residents receive food stamps and medical assistance.

And the fossil fuel and mineral extraction that once drove the local economy have dwindled: The last time a rig drilled a hole in the county was February 2014, according to the oil service company Baker Hughes.

Helpful or hazardous?
Some argue that a monument designation could prove to be an economic asset to the region, in the same way tourism increased at Utah’s Grand Staircase-
Escalante National Monument after Bill Clinton designated it in 1996, as well as other sites that received similar presidential recognition.

Friends of Cedar Mesa Executive Director Josh Ewing, who has sought to broker a legislative compromise, noted that Utah’s “Mighty Five” advertising blitz touts four national parks that were initially protected under the Antiquities Act.

Last week Herbert and Hatch held an event at one of those well-known sites, Natural Bridges National Monument, to reiterate their opposition to another presidential designation in the state.

“It’s the sort of thing that will die down quickly,” said Ewing, an avid rock climber who regularly scales the area’s canyons and cliffs.

Still, Hatch was concerned enough that he warned Interior Secretary Sally Jewell in a private meeting in his office on March 8 that a repeat of what Clinton did 20 years ago could prompt an armed confrontation.

Obama was briefed on the conversation with Hatch, according to several individuals, and instructed his aides to continue exploring the possibility of designating a monument. Jewell plans to visit the area this summer, and no final decision has been made.

Local Politics Alerts
Breaking news about local government in D.C., Md., Va.
Sign up
But Obama pledged in November that his administration would “review tribal proposals to permanently protect sacred lands for future generations.” Those who have spoken to him about it, including presidential historian Douglas Brinkley, say Obama “keenly wants to do some things [recognizing] Native American culture,” and the proposal meets that test.

Natural Resources Defense Council President Rhea Suh, who served as one of the Interior Department’s top officials before switching jobs about 18 months ago, said that when it comes to such monuments, “You usually wait for the harder ones for the last moment . . . and the window is closing for permanent protection of some of the grandest landscapes, I think, in the entire United States.”

Jonah Yellowman, who was forced at age 6 to attend a boarding school in New Mexico where he was physically punished for speaking his native language, is waiting for that sort of recognition. Yellowman walks easily along the landscape, pointing out where he collects firewood and the plants Navajos use to camouflage their faces in one ritual and scent sweat lodges in another.

Both Anglo and Navajo politicians have disappointed him before — Yellowman doesn’t have running water or electricity at his remote home near Monument Valley, where iconic Westerns were filmed decades ago. He thinks the tribes have started a movement that can succeed.

“My people, they start something and it doesn’t go nowhere,” he said. “You can tell that this is different. This one, there’s hope.”
A long article I know, but interesting. And sickening. :evil:

My take:

Obama should go ahead with whatever he's going to do, within the limits of the law, and if the militia nuts get violent, he should shove the National Guard up their asses.
User avatar
Highlord Laan
Jedi Master
Posts: 1394
Joined: 2009-11-08 02:36pm
Location: Christo-fundie Theofascist Dominion of Nebraskistan

Re: Tea baggers threaten another militia insurrection over preservation of Native American site.

Post by Highlord Laan »

Make it a monument, then dare the motherfuckers to start something.
Never underestimate the ingenuity and cruelty of the Irish.
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Tea baggers threaten another militia insurrection over preservation of Native American site.

Post by Patroklos »

How exactly is the tea party involved in this again? Specifically the armed insurrection part of your title?
User avatar
Jaepheth
Jedi Master
Posts: 1055
Joined: 2004-03-18 02:13am
Location: between epsilon and zero

Re: Tea baggers threaten another militia insurrection over preservation of Native American site.

Post by Jaepheth »

The Machiavelli in me says that now that they've threatened violence you pretty much have to go ahead and make it a national monument if only to show them that their bullshit will get them nowhere.

You change things with your votes and your lawsuits; not your guns. Guns are for coyotes and target practice, not politics; not in a civilized country.
Children of the Ancients
I'm sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate the phone by 90 degrees and try again.
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Tea baggers threaten another militia insurrection over preservation of Native American site.

Post by Patroklos »

Did anybody threaten violence?
User avatar
Jaepheth
Jedi Master
Posts: 1055
Joined: 2004-03-18 02:13am
Location: between epsilon and zero

Re: Tea baggers threaten another militia insurrection over preservation of Native American site.

Post by Jaepheth »

Oops, I misread the article. One of the lawmakers is wary of possible violence:

“I would hope that my fellow Utahans would not use violence, but there are some deeply held positions that cannot just be ignored,” Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, the veteran Republican lawmaker, said in an interview.

Could be construed as a dog whistle call for violence, but not an explicit threat.
Children of the Ancients
I'm sorry, but the number you have dialed is imaginary. Please rotate the phone by 90 degrees and try again.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Tea baggers threaten another militia insurrection over preservation of Native American site.

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Multiple lawmakers expressed concern about violence according to the article, actually. And yes, you could take some of that as an implied threat.

Also, if lawmakers are warning about possible violence, that leads to two possible conclusions:

Either they have reason to fear that violence could occur.

Or they are fabricating such a threat in order to advance their agenda.

The article also cites a militia protest in the same state over a canyon that was closed off two years ago.

As to why I referenced the Tea Party...

I acknowledge that I'm basically using the Tea Party as a catch-all for Right wing extremists, as its my understanding that it isn't really one centralized group, but a more amorphous movement.
User avatar
Joun_Lord
Jedi Master
Posts: 1211
Joined: 2014-09-27 01:40am
Location: West by Golly Virginia

Re: Tea baggers threaten another militia insurrection over preservation of Native American site.

Post by Joun_Lord »

The Romulan Republic wrote:I acknowledge that I'm basically using the Tea Party as a catch-all for Right wing extremists, as its my understanding that it isn't really one centralized group, but a more amorphous movement.
That seems unfair. The Tea Party are a bunch of racist fucktards idiots who are essentially a less hippie version of Occupy Wall Street but they aren't anywhere close to being the worst the right wing has to offer nor are they really responsible for some of the shit like Bundy and his ilk. Some Tea Bagger law makers might have given lip service to Bundy (up until he started talking about "the Negro") but the actual pitiful party of putrid punks had little to do with it.

That aside, this shit is fucking disgusting. Disgusting that these morons continue to not give a shit about a people and their cultural heritage that was horribly fucked over. Continue to not care about the environment of the country they claim to love. Continue to be fucking flaming morons.

I have no fucking sympathy for Bundy and those like him. I have nothing but loathing for them even before they were shown to be racist fuckbags of cockslime. These are motherfuckers who don't care about anything but themselves and their short sighted short term goals. They don't care about laws, Bundy breaking them for 20 fucking goddamn years is evidence of that, they don't care about whats right. And if they don't get what they want they arm up with this shitty Tapco Shrubmasters and SKSs to go break more laws, to threaten people and act like the stereotype of the "N-word" that they no doubt demonize.

I'll admit Bundy angers me greatly. No, not even anger really, pure fucking rage. He is a piece of human garbage in a cowboy hat (formerly) tramping around on stolen land with the overgrown piles of festering feces he called his sons. He is a racist cunt, a traitor to America, a literal white N-word in every single possible way, and it makes my brain fucking hurt like I got a parasite in there or I've watched a few hours of reality tv that he has supporters, he has people defending him.

And while Bundy is in jail enjoying being culturally enriched by "the Negro" people just like him are running around still fucking over Natives. Goddammit.

Maybe Obama will do something right for once and designate these sites as monuments despite these cockbags. Its more likely then pigs flying or the next US President being anything other then a complete fucking piece of shit but I'm still not going to hold my breath.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Tea baggers threaten another militia insurrection over preservation of Native American site.

Post by Flagg »

No one threatened violence, title misleading. Though I wouldn't mind seeing more of these Bundy numbnuts (who I don't recall being teabaggers) go to federal prison.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Tanasinn
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 1765
Joined: 2007-01-21 10:10pm
Location: Void Zone

Re: Tea baggers threaten another militia insurrection over preservation of Native American site.

Post by Tanasinn »

So no one has threatened violence and the tea party isn't involved. Why not change title to 'Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles promise dance competition over preservation of Native American site.' ?

May as well solve the problem by designating it a monument.
Truth fears no trial.
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Tea baggers threaten another militia insurrection over preservation of Native American site.

Post by Patroklos »

I really doubt the monument part, specific to individual locations of interests, is the problem. The issue is the 2 million acres around those sites. While certainly some buffer is required to make the sites pristine as well as protected, all of the heritage and historic preservation arguments are a stretch when talking about so much area. Unless it is so generic such as "my people lived there once" in which case the argument is just as valid for Manhattan.

If you want it protected for some nebulous environmental reason (there is no real reason this area deserves protection over others for ecological reasons, it is not threatened) fine. Its a valid argument from a certain perspective. However, if you live there and want to improve your lot in life through economic development certainly your perspective is different.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Tea baggers threaten another militia insurrection over preservation of Native American site.

Post by Flagg »

Patroklos wrote:I really doubt the monument part, specific to individual locations of interests, is the problem. The issue is the 2 million acres around those sites. While certainly some buffer is required to make the sites pristine as well as protected, all of the heritage and historic preservation arguments are a stretch when talking about so much area. Unless it is so generic such as "my people lived there once" in which case the argument is just as valid for Manhattan.

If you want it protected for some nebulous environmental reason (there is no real reason this area deserves protection over others for ecological reasons, it is not threatened) fine. Its a valid argument from a certain perspective. However, if you live there and want to improve your lot in life through economic development certainly your perspective is different.
It sounds like an area not great for development, but rather exploitation. And if it's the area I think it is, it's got anthropological relevance because of cave art. So the frackers and ore miners can go ruin other land.

And the thread title should be "David Bowie & Muhammed Ali beat up God" :P
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30165
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: Tea baggers threaten another militia insurrection over preservation of Native American site.

Post by Simon_Jester »

Patroklos wrote:I really doubt the monument part, specific to individual locations of interests, is the problem. The issue is the 2 million acres around those sites. While certainly some buffer is required to make the sites pristine as well as protected, all of the heritage and historic preservation arguments are a stretch when talking about so much area. Unless it is so generic such as "my people lived there once" in which case the argument is just as valid for Manhattan.

If you want it protected for some nebulous environmental reason (there is no real reason this area deserves protection over others for ecological reasons, it is not threatened) fine. Its a valid argument from a certain perspective. However, if you live there and want to improve your lot in life through economic development certainly your perspective is different.
The catch is that the land is desert and the only real economic activity of note is resource extraction, which has petered out. Moreover, not all the sites in that area are fully known. We can't just say "this spot, this spot, and this spot are national monuments, you can bulldoze the rest," because we ourselves do not fully understand what sites of archeological and cultural significance may be there.

Meanwhile, state politicoes are calling for a 'responsible, local' approach to conservation, which is a joke, because if Utah wanted to conserve the state's archaeological sites and preserve native culture, they would already be doing so and be taking steps against random looting of grave goods and historic sites.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov
User avatar
SCRawl
Has a bad feeling about this.
Posts: 4191
Joined: 2002-12-24 03:11pm
Location: Burlington, Canada

Re: Obama considers protecting Native American site; conservatives disapprove

Post by SCRawl »

Title changed.
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.

I'm waiting as fast as I can.
User avatar
Imperial Overlord
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11978
Joined: 2004-08-19 04:30am
Location: The Tower at Charm

Re: Obama considers protecting Native American site; conservatives disapprove

Post by Imperial Overlord »

The area is rich with a variety archeological sites, not just ones featuring cave art, but it's a big area. There's plenty of room to enjoy the great outdoors without ruining any sites. Mining's pretty much dead there. The only reason not to protect these sites is being a plunderer or a douche bag.
The Excellent Prismatic Spray. For when you absolutely, positively must kill a motherfucker. Accept no substitutions. Contact a magician of the later Aeons for details. Some conditions may apply.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Obama considers protecting Native American site; conservatives disapprove

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Well, "...a plunderer or a douche bag." would make a fairly good summary of most of the American Right these days.
User avatar
Ziggy Stardust
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3114
Joined: 2006-09-10 10:16pm
Location: Research Triangle, NC

Re: Tea baggers threaten another militia insurrection over preservation of Native American site.

Post by Ziggy Stardust »

Patroklos wrote:I really doubt the monument part, specific to individual locations of interests, is the problem. The issue is the 2 million acres around those sites. While certainly some buffer is required to make the sites pristine as well as protected, all of the heritage and historic preservation arguments are a stretch when talking about so much area. Unless it is so generic such as "my people lived there once" in which case the argument is just as valid for Manhattan.

If you want it protected for some nebulous environmental reason (there is no real reason this area deserves protection over others for ecological reasons, it is not threatened) fine. Its a valid argument from a certain perspective. However, if you live there and want to improve your lot in life through economic development certainly your perspective is different.
There is no realistic avenue for economic development in the area other than looting archaeological sites (which, if you read the OP, you would notice is the major reason they are trying to make this a National Monument, to stop the looting that is already going on there). Further, you are acting like they are arbitrarily carving up a 2 million acre swathe of land that they like; in reality, they are trying to impose National Monument status on a group of lands that are already to various degrees recognized and protected regions (Cedar Mesa, Valley of the Gods, Indian Creek, etc.). The problem (which, once again, is outlined clearly in the OP) is that there isn't enough manpower or budget to properly control these areas, but levying National Monument status on them would serve to inevitably increase federal spending towards protecting them. For the most part, the issue is that these areas area ALREADY legally protected from economic development, and in some cases have been for years, but that they don't have any realistic mode of enforcement. Unifying them together under the umbrella of a National Monument would, at least in theory, fix this.
User avatar
Edi
Dragonlord
Dragonlord
Posts: 12461
Joined: 2002-07-11 12:27am
Location: Helsinki, Finland

Re: Obama considers protecting Native American site; conservatives disapprove

Post by Edi »

Of course conservatives threw shitfit over this. They would throw a shitfit over Obama saying rape is a bad thing, simply because it was Obama who said it.
Warwolf Urban Combat Specialist

Why is it so goddamned hard to get little assholes like you to admit it when you fuck up? Is it pride? What gives you the right to have any pride?
–Darth Wong to vivftp

GOP message? Why don't they just come out of the closet: FASCISTS R' US –Patrick Degan

The GOP has a problem with anyone coming out of the closet. –18-till-I-die
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Tea baggers threaten another militia insurrection over preservation of Native American site.

Post by Patroklos »

Ziggy Stardust wrote: There is no realistic avenue for economic development in the area other than looting archaeological sites (which, if you read the OP, you would notice is the major reason they are trying to make this a National Monument, to stop the looting that is already going on there).
1.) Will the place always be poor? Sure, based on what we know. Will people (including indigenous) continue to live there? Yes. Are we going to forcibly remove them? No. Do they have a right to strive for economic development regardless of the apparent chance of success? Yes. Should this surprise anyone? No. Do we generally try and give voice to local residents on local development initiatives, especially ones that drastically change the life circumstances of those residents? Yes.

2.) Fuck off. None of the locals are making their living from looting anything. We have no idea who did that, and it almost certainly was outsiders (probably city slicker vacationers given recent incidents). Its exactly this sort of bullshit that causes residents of areas like this to resist outside influence.
Further, you are acting like they are arbitrarily carving up a 2 million acre swathe of land that they like; in reality, they are trying to impose National Monument status on a group of lands that are already to various degrees recognized and protected regions (Cedar Mesa, Valley of the Gods, Indian Creek, etc.).
So the problem isn't that they are not designated protected areas, which is all national monument status does...
The problem (which, once again, is outlined clearly in the OP) is that there isn't enough manpower or budget to properly control these areas, but levying National Monument status on them would serve to inevitably increase federal spending towards protecting them
...but rather that protected status means jack shit if its only on paper. To this end, increasing the area of these protected regions by a few thousand times is not going to help the situation. Yellowstone, one of the best funded national sites with the most law enforcement, still can't keep people from shoving bison into their hatchbacks. Petersburg National Battlefield was just looted recently, they have normal staffing for such a location. And given that the new designation does not come with any new appropriations, the expansion will only bring new enforcement by taking it away from somewhere else.

I hate to tell you this, but in reality rural military bases can be penetrated at will. Those are places of national security importance with tens to hundreds of thousands of active soldiers, many on manuevers within those areas, and yet they understand that its a lost cause to think they are going to man a perimeter of hundreds to thousands of miles to any effect. That being said, obviously our national parks are also not fortresses, and there are really very few monuments period let alone ones in rural locations that can't be looted at will. You could dig up a grave at Arlington National Cemetery with every expectation of not being caught (there was a recent incident at another veterans cemetary where a someone drove down Memorial Day decorations, nobody saw it happen or caught the perpetrator). You could dynamite the natural bridge and not only be reasonably sure you won't be caught, but also that there would be no law enforcement close enough to even hear you do it. I could cut down any local Redwood grove over hours with a chainsaw and probably get away with it. The simple fact is that most of our national heritage is protected by the good will of the people, and that is not going to change. If that's not good enough for you and really want to protect these specific sites via positive control, if that is your goal, the real strategy is to reduce the area that needs protecting around them and focus your resources in the immediate vicinity of those places.
For the most part, the issue is that these areas area ALREADY legally protected from economic development, and in some cases have been for years, but that they don't have any realistic mode of enforcement. Unifying them together under the umbrella of a National Monument would, at least in theory, fix this.
No, it theory it does the exact opposite. Increase area by several hundreds to thousands, maybe increase resources by a few times in the best case scenario. Probably not at all. What is that supposed to help?

All this does in the realm of positive protection of sites is add theoretical new federal penalties if you are caught. As you noted, these are already protected sites with presumably penalties for things like looting. Do you think looters will be discouraged by some additional federal penalty?

Bottom line: If you want to protect these heritage sites that can be done and might be a great idea. If you want to create a 2 million acre protected park that can be done too and also might be a great idea. That doesn't mean doing one helps you do the other, and nobody in this thread or the article has shown how they would.

I personally am fine with both, that doesn't mean you shouldn't cut through the BS.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Obama considers protecting Native American site; conservatives disapprove

Post by Flagg »

Patrolkos, what is your issue, really? Do you own land that would be seized to protect the sites? I'm finding it hard to understand just what your fucking problem is. Do you think that since "We stole it, we own it, fuck the natives and their archaeological sites, there's a meager amount of shit to extract and if it destroys priceless shit, oh well?"
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Obama considers protecting Native American site; conservatives disapprove

Post by Patroklos »

Try again, but this time pretend you are responding to something I actually said.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Obama considers protecting Native American site; conservatives disapprove

Post by Flagg »

Patroklos wrote:Try again, but this time pretend you are responding to something I actually said.
What you said was nonsensicle. It was drivel about how it would be harder to protect despite federal funds and manpower, which is 3/4 batshit 1/4 bullshit.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
Patroklos
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2009-04-14 11:00am

Re: Obama considers protecting Native American site; conservatives disapprove

Post by Patroklos »

When did funds and manpower get put on the table? Tell us, specifically, what funds and what manpower were added to the relevant agency budgets or shifted within them to provide looter prof security for this area. How many new park rangers? 100? 1000?

It's simple math Flagg. If you expand a protected area by so many times, just to maintain enforcement you would have to increase resources to something approaching the same magnitude. Even with efficiencies of scale the investment will be significant. Stretching your resources to cover millions of new acres of protected area effectively means protecting any previously secured area within it less. If your man complaint is the current protective sites are vulnerable to looting, how exactly does anything proposed address this?

Meanwhile we are supposed to indiscriminately protect those 2 million acres of mostly unremarkable scrub land and desert because of some remote possibility some undisclosed future development might damage an unknown speculative historic site that may or may not exist at the same time the article and several posters in this thread point out development in the area is minimal and declining now and unlikely in the future as a reason local citizens concerns are forfeit.

Oh yeah, and the people who live there are not citizens with opinions that matter about their well being, but actually grave robbers.

The two initiatives are not complimentary based on the goals as presented, in fact the are contradictory and conflating them was simply to appeal to uninquisitive idiots. Given the trouble we had just getting an accurate thread title that's proven in spades.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: Obama considers protecting Native American site; conservatives disapprove

Post by Flagg »

Patroklos wrote:When did funds and manpower get put on the table? Tell us, specifically, what funds and what manpower were added to the relevant agency budgets or shifted within them to provide looter prof security for this area. How many new park rangers? 100? 1000?

It's simple math Flagg. If you expand a protected area by so many times, just to maintain enforcement you would have to increase resources to something approaching the same magnitude. Even with efficiencies of scale the investment will be significant. Stretching your resources to cover millions of new acres of protected area effectively means protecting any previously secured area within it less. If your man complaint is the current protective sites are vulnerable to looting, how exactly does anything proposed address this?

Meanwhile we are supposed to indiscriminately protect those 2 million acres of mostly unremarkable scrub land and desert because of some remote possibility some undisclosed future development might damage an unknown speculative historic site that may or may not exist at the same time the article and several posters in this thread point out development in the area is minimal and declining now and unlikely in the future as a reason local citizens concerns are forfeit.

Oh yeah, and the people who live there are not citizens with opinions that matter about their well being, but actually grave robbers.

The two initiatives are not complimentary based on the goals as presented, in fact the are contradictory and conflating them was simply to appeal to uninquisitive idiots. Given the trouble we had just getting an accurate thread title that's proven in spades.
Well, the op is a known driveling idiot and I worked to get the title changed, so you're welcome. Also, what part of federal manpower + funds being added to protect sites threatened by the tiny minority of the grave robbers that live among you (and odds are live in all of our towns/cities because meth is a hell of a drug) doesn't register? It also prevents harvesting of resources in the effected area as there may be more shit that's undiscovered.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
SCRawl
Has a bad feeling about this.
Posts: 4191
Joined: 2002-12-24 03:11pm
Location: Burlington, Canada

Re: Obama considers protecting Native American site; conservatives disapprove

Post by SCRawl »

It seems as though Patroklos has pointed out that an Executive Order protecting a greater area is just a paper tiger without the funds and manpower to back it up. And I don't read anything in the article about more of either of these being forthcoming. Perhaps funding is implicit with declaring it a national monument, I confess that I don't know that.
73% of all statistics are made up, including this one.

I'm waiting as fast as I can.
Post Reply